Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider
registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.

I guess you guys aren't going to let the bitterness go any time soon, huh?

Quote:

ANDREA BOCELLI
The Italian tenor was reportedly approached personally by Trump after one of his concerts at Madison Square Garden this month, and was apparently considering it. But after he started taking “too much heat” from fans on social media, complete with the #BoycottBocelli hashtag, he decided to back out

Respondents Smith and Black were fired by a private drug rehabilitation organization because they ingested peyote, a hallucinogenic drug, for sacramental purposes at a ceremony of their Native American Church. Their applications for unemployment compensation were denied by the State of Oregon under a state law disqualifying employees discharged for work-related "misconduct."

Oh no, a hashtag on twitter? Thank God Trump doesn't do anything like that. You know, like the time he called out that college girl, then she received death and rape threats. Or the hashtag he started to lock up Hillary, and then the crooked Hillary that followed.

Wait, wasn't I just being told that it's the left that are hypocrites? Always a travesty when it happens to your people. Besides I hate to be a spoil sport, but that doesn't say **** about death threats. Another non-sequitur.

__________________"All acts performed in the world begin in the imagination."--Barbara Grizzuti Harrison

“There are times when the mind is dealt such a blow it hides itself in insanity. While this may not seem beneficial, it is. There are times when reality is nothing but pain, and to escape that pain the mind must leave reality behind.” - Patrick Rothfuss

Oh no, a hashtag on twitter? Thank God Trump doesn't do anything like that. You know, like the time he called out that college girl, then she received death and rape threats. Or the hashtag he started to lock up Hillary, and then the crooked Hillary that followed.

Wait, wasn't I just being told that it's the left that are hypocrites? Always a travesty when it happens to your people. Besides I hate to be a spoil sport, but that doesn't say **** about death threats. Another non-sequitur.

__________________"There's vastly more truth to be found in rocks than in holy books. Rocks are far superior, in fact, because you can DEMONSTRATE the truth found in rocks. Plus, they're pretty. Holy books are just heavy." - Dinwar

The featured headliners for Inauguration Day are the Mormon Tabernacle Choir and the Rockettes (dancing troupe) because nearly everyone else turned the event down. And the dancers themselves are up in arms because they have been basically roped into it by their contracts.

Regardless, the idea Trump has scheduled the Rockettes only serves to emphasize his misogyny. In any other setting, they'd be wonderful. But given Trump's pussy grabbing, trophy wife trade-ups and his emphasis on women's sexuality above all other qualities women have ... it adds up to disgusting.

Exactly. When the shoe's on the other foot, you will be made to care. But when it's their convictions, "Hey, that's, like, totally different and stuff, Man."

As best I can tell, religious freedom/freedom of conscience is good when it involves peyote smoking Native American drug counselors or performers who just don't like Trump. But double plus ungood when it involves religious employers who don't want to pay for abortions or bakers who prefer not to cater homosexual weddings.

And the threat to their safety means nothing to you, of course. Only a deep in the swamp misogynist would make those women dance for Trump. (And I don't throw that word around very often.)

IMO, if their contracts required it, I wouldn't see much issue with management stating "no, this is our job, do it or leave." And of course, I also wouldn't have much problem with the Rockettes leaving en masse in response. But it seems that this is not the case after all, so...that's fine as well.

BTW, the appropriate analogy to bakers refusing to bake for a same-sex couple would be Rockettes management refusing to perform for Trump because he was straight, or something similar. It's always bizarre to me when people think that "sexual predator" is analogous to "gay".

They're "not required", but you know as well as I how employers make it clear that you do what you're told or else.

And you would be perfectly file with requiring women to willingly place themselves at risk of sexual assault? I've seen some WTF things said on these forums, but you just reached the bottom of the swamp with that one.

More of that high moral fiber that conservatives claim? Dixie Chicks say something bad about the Bush-Cheney War so it's okay to boycott them and demonstrate displeasure. Cracker Barrel wants to stop carrying the merchandise of a feeble minded old bigot, so it's okay for the AFA and similar groups to organize a boycott of Cracker Barrel. "Free Speech, Man!"

How's this any different? Oooh, I know. "Because liberals." I love this special snowflake treatment Republicans want. It's our duty to rally behind the office of the President for the good of the country? Like the GOP Caucuses in Congress did when they rallied behind Obama, "for the good of the country"?

__________________Ha! Foolmewunz has just been added to the list of people who aren't complete idiots. Hokulele
"Chicken **** Poster!"
Help! We're being attacked by sea lions!

And you would be perfectly file with requiring women to willingly place themselves at risk of sexual assault? I've seen some WTF things said on these forums, but you just reached the bottom of the swamp with that one.

What does that mean? It sounds bad, but I don't understand the concept behind the phrasing. Is it victim blaming?

You're not aware that women in the presence of Trump are more likely to be victims of sexual assault than those who aren't?

Um... no. How is that supposed to work, and how is dancing on a stage connected to an increased risk of sexual assault? One might as well say traveling to D.C. does the same.

Besides all that, the narrative is supposed to be that women should do whatever they want because cautioning them otherwise only empowers the victimizer... somehow. Next thing we know we'll be telling these women not to do any sexually suggestive moves on stage. Or something.

My suggestion is this: If you don't want to be sexually assaulted, just don't read Donald Trump's twitter feed.

I find that seriously hard to believe, do you have any sort of a citation to back up that assertion?

Originally Posted by marplots

Um... no. How is that supposed to work, and how is dancing on a stage connected to an increased risk of sexual assault? One might as well say traveling to D.C. does the same.

Besides all that, the narrative is supposed to be that women should do whatever they want because cautioning them otherwise only empowers the victimizer... somehow. Next thing we know we'll be telling these women not to do any sexually suggestive moves on stage. Or something.

My suggestion is this: If you don't want to be sexually assaulted, just don't read Donald Trump's twitter feed.

1) Trump's own words on how he behaves when he meets women - from memory something like"when you're s star, you can get away with anything, Grab em by the pussy"
2) Testimony from women who have been assaulted in the manner Trump describes
3) Trump's words about going back stage when females are getting changed

More of that high moral fiber that conservatives claim? Dixie Chicks say something bad about the Bush-Cheney War so it's okay to boycott them and demonstrate displeasure. Cracker Barrel wants to stop carrying the merchandise of a feeble minded old bigot, so it's okay for the AFA and similar groups to organize a boycott of Cracker Barrel. "Free Speech, Man!"

How's this any different? Oooh, I know. "Because liberals." I love this special snowflake treatment Republicans want. It's our duty to rally behind the office of the President for the good of the country? Like the GOP Caucuses in Congress did when they rallied behind Obama, "for the good of the country"?

I do not boycott Cracker Barrel but I do not eat there any longer. Only for the most important reason a person should have - 5+ years ago their stuff (food) took an amazing and rapid drop in quality. I have retried them (all different stores) at least 6 times and they were bad, not tasting good every single time. I thus stopped trying. - note haven't had that happen in any other restaurant. I miss the food at C B but as it was, it is worthless now - or might as well be as I have no intent of eating there again.

__________________There is no problem so great that it cannot be fixed by small explosives carefully placed.

1) Trump's own words on how he behaves when he meets women - from memory something like"when you're s star, you can get away with anything, Grab em by the pussy"
2) Testimony from women who have been assaulted in the manner Trump describes
3) Trump's words about going back stage when females are getting changed

And I'm supposed to connect those dots to come up with: "...requiring women to willingly place themselves at risk of sexual assault" ?

I might be in the wrong class because there's a crapload of prerequisites I'm missing. But since we've tracked the rabbit this far, is the new rule going to be that Donald Trump must become some kind of gender hermit - remaining at some safe distance (likely measured in miles) from all females, lest he suddenly commit sexual assault on them? For surely we must strive to reduce the risk here.

I have no doubt that any of the Rockettes could, without much trouble, knock the 70-year-old Trump on his powdered butt, and probably not even have to use their legs to do so.

Um... no. How is that supposed to work, and how is dancing on a stage connected to an increased risk of sexual assault? One might as well say traveling to D.C. does the same.

Besides all that, the narrative is supposed to be that women should do whatever they want because cautioning them otherwise only empowers the victimizer... somehow. Next thing we know we'll be telling these women not to do any sexually suggestive moves on stage. Or something.

My suggestion is this: If you don't want to be sexually assaulted, just don't read Donald Trump's twitter feed.

Don't play silly, we know you are not - the problem is not on stage, it is when Trump decides to honor them with a visit in the dressing room while they are changing costumes/clothes. As he has unquestionably/admittedly done to others including young girls in the past!!!!! Just caught that this had been ninjaed above!!! ChristianProgressive /post 58 noted it!!!!!!!

__________________There is no problem so great that it cannot be fixed by small explosives carefully placed.

And I'm supposed to connect those dots to come up with: "...requiring women to willingly place themselves at risk of sexual assault" ?

I might be in the wrong class because there's a crapload of prerequisites I'm missing. But since we've tracked the rabbit this far, is the new rule going to be that Donald Trump must become some kind of gender hermit - remaining at some safe distance (likely measured in miles) from all females, lest he suddenly commit sexual assault on them? For surely we must strive to reduce the risk here.

I have no doubt that any of the Rockettes could, without much trouble, knock the 70-year-old Trump on his powdered butt, and probably not even have to use their legs to do so.

Becoming president makes you more vulnerable to scandal, not less.

They could and I have no problem with them doing so - but his security would - and would almost certainly be chosen for overreaction.

__________________There is no problem so great that it cannot be fixed by small explosives carefully placed.

Don't play silly, we know you are not - the problem is not on stage, it is when Trump decides to honor them with a visit in the dressing room while they are changing costumes/clothes. As he has unquestionably/admittedly done to others including young girls in the past!!!!!

OMG!!

These are adults, right?

How is this even taken seriously? It's like I've been transported to Tehran.

I feel like I need to lay out the story problem for my own satisfaction.

The idea is that a newly elected president, at his own inauguration, is going to sneak backstage to catch women changing for the show. And further, this is deemed so likely that these same women - established stage professionals - feel it constitutes a credible risk of sexual assault.

Instead of, say, some of the women don't like Trump and don't want to perform at his inauguration?

Has anyone suggested they could change into their outfits at their hotels and just do hair and makeup at the venue?

I feel like I need to lay out the story problem for my own satisfaction.

The idea is that a newly elected president, at his own inauguration, is going to sneak backstage to catch women changing for the show. And further, this is deemed so likely that these same women - established stage professionals - feel it constitutes a credible risk of sexual assault.

Instead of, say, some of the women don't like Trump and don't want to perform at his inauguration?

Has anyone suggested they could change into their outfits at their hotels and just do hair and makeup at the venue?

Why should they need to, why cannot the not female persons simply stay out of the dressing room?

__________________There is no problem so great that it cannot be fixed by small explosives carefully placed.

Why should they need to, why cannot the not female persons simply stay out of the dressing room?

Isn't the idea to reduce the risk of sexual assault? Doing things to reduce that risk would seem to be as spot on as possible. Of the two courses of action, not showing up at all and changing in one's hotel room, the second seems much less a radical idea than the first.

Do you deny that Trump would feel even more powerful today then when it last happened?

What's it look like under the sand, anyway?

No, I don't deny that it happened. No, I don't deny that Trump is more powerful today than then.

The part I'm having trouble with is that those two things add up to cancelling a performance. I think it's political. Which is fine. I could see where people might not want to attend a Bill Cosby show using the same kind of protest logic. But the bit about increased risk of sexual assault is silly.